negrinv wrote:
there is a third way Doug, and it's for me to stop trying to be polite by
answering all the questions that I am being asked, then nobody will get
upset by my replies. If the decision is for no encryption at field level, I
accept it, but I don't believe it should be externalised. P
negrinv wrote:
there is a third way Doug, and it's for me to stop trying to be polite by
answering all the questions that I am being asked, then nobody will get
upset by my replies. If the decision is for no encryption at field level, I
accept it, but I don't believe it should be externalised. P
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Attached-proposed-modifications-to-Lucene-2.0-to-support-Field.Store.Encrypted-tf2727614.html#a7710442
Sent from the
;
> Chuck
>
>
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Attached-proposed-mo
Mike Klaas wrote on 12/05/2006 11:38 AM:
> On 12/5/06, negrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
>> > If the code was not already in the core, and someone asked about
>> adding it
>> > I would argue against doing so on the grounds that some helpfull
>> utility
>> > methods
Doug Cutting wrote:
So, Victor, do you think this functionality could be reasonably packaged
as an add-on package to Lucene?
Doug, for an answer to most of your questions could you please refer to my
answer to Chris Hostetter [ ... ]
Let me be more direct. Encryption of Lucene fields may be
module.
>
> Doug
>
Doug, for an answer to most of your questions could you please refer to my
answer to Chris Hostetter, Chris makes some valid points:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Attached-proposed-modifications-to-Lucene-2.0-to-support-F
---
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Attached-
proposed-modifi
On 12/5/06, negrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Hostetter wrote:
> If the code was not already in the core, and someone asked about adding it
> I would argue against doing so on the grounds that some helpfull utility
> methods (possibly in a contrib) would be just as usefull, and would h
as unsuccessful in creating a diff file
because I was picking up all kind of formatting differences as well. If you
scan it quickly you will find that is really very simple and, at least in
its current limited implementation, hardly invasive of Lucene's core. All
the encryption routines are in
robert engels wrote:
I would counter that it is not a compelling feature for MOST users of
Lucene, but it can still be implemented externally using binary fields
for those that require it, and or even easier (and maybe even faster)
using a encrypted filesystem with proper security.
+1
Some u
(For the record: I have delibierately avoided looking at your patch so
far, because i didn't want my opinion on the question of "should Lucene
offer encryption services" to be clouded by any specifics of your
implimentation. That said...)
As it's already been pointed out, an apples to apples com
--
From: Nicolas Lalev�e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Dec 1, 2006 4:49 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to
support
Field.Store.Encrypted
Le Vendredi 1 D�cembre 2006 11:10, negrinv a �crit�:
Nicolas Lalev�e-2 wrote:
Le Vendredi 1 D�cem
gt; Victor
>>
>>
>> Robert Engels wrote:
>>>
>>> Not if running under OSX with encrypted swap turned on ! :)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-
>>>> From: Nicolas Lalev�e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Sent: Dec 1, 2006 4:49 AM
ct: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to
support
Field.Store.Encrypted
Le Vendredi 1 D�cembre 2006 11:10, negrinv a �crit�:
Nicolas Lalev�e-2 wrote:
Le Vendredi 1 D�cembre 2006 01:33, negrinv a �crit :
Thank you Robert for your commnets. I am inclined to agree
with you,
but
I
: dismay I noticed that JIRA assigned licence to the ASF for the provider
: software. something which I did not intend and which cannot be valid. Can it
: be reversed please?)
the flag can't be modified, but attachments can be deleted, which i have
done for the jar in question.
feel free to rea
: That is a valid consideration Doron, which brings the discussion back to the
: difference between encrypton and security. I believe that security is an end
: application responsability, not Lucene's. For instance, is it possible to
: write the end application so that those stats are hidden from
> From negrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent Fri 12/1/2006 1:22 PM
> To java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support
> Field.Store.Encrypted
>
>
> That is a valid consideration Doron, which brings the discuss
n't do it
> from Eclipse, do it from the command-line: svn diff src, or some such.
>
> Otis
>
> - Original Message
> From: negrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, December 1, 2006 5:10:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Attach
ple ;-)
That's my two cents.
-- Joaquin
-Original Message-
>From negrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent Fri 12/1/2006 1:22 PM
To java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support
Field.Store.Encrypted
That is a valid consider
---
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Attached-proposed-modifications-to-Lucene-2.0-to-support-Field.Store.Encrypted-tf2727614.html#a7646459
Sent fr
Cryptonomicon, anyone?!
On Dec 1, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Doron Cohen wrote:
Robert Engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/12/2006 09:34:12:
... decrypting such small payloads .. I think it is also subject
to an
easy attack,
In addition, index statistics are still available, right? So one
can
On 12/1/06, negrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we should not make too many assumptions about performance until we
can test alternative solutions.
<>
The small payload overhead will be amply offset in my opinion by the ability
to be very selective about what is being encrypted, as opp
on peformance and workload either in Lucene code
or user code.
I cannot test the performance issues until there is an alternative solution
in place. If you have one and you can make it available I will be happy to
give it an impartial
as Lalev�e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Dec 1, 2006 4:49 AM
>>To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support
Field.Store.Encrypted
>>
>>Le Vendredi 1 D�cembre 2006 11:10, negrinv a �crit�:
>>> Nicolas Lale
-Original Message-
>>From: Nicolas Lalev�e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Dec 1, 2006 2:20 AM
>>To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support
Field.Store.Encrypted
>>
>>Le Vendredi 1 D�cembre 2006 01:33,
Robert Engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/12/2006 09:34:12:
> ... decrypting such small payloads .. I think it is also subject to an
easy attack,
In addition, index statistics are still available, right? So one can know
how many docs, which (encrypted) words appear in which docs and exactly
w
Not if running under OSX with encrypted swap turned on ! :)
-Original Message-
>From: Nicolas Lalev�e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Dec 1, 2006 4:49 AM
>To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support
>Field.
ot attach it to minimize
>> >>>> the size
>> >>>> of the attachements, but it can be downloaded free from:
>> >>>> http://www.bouncycastle.org/latest_relea
Le Vendredi 1 Décembre 2006 11:10, negrinv a écrit :
> Nicolas Lalevée-2 wrote:
> > Le Vendredi 1 Décembre 2006 01:33, negrinv a écrit :
> >> Thank you Robert for your commnets. I am inclined to agree with you, but
> >> I
> >> would like to establish first of all if simplicity of implementation is
ne code
or user code.
I cannot test the performance issues until there is an alternative solution
in place. If you have one and you can make it available I will be happy to
give it an impartial test.
Victor
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Attached-proposed-modification
rectory.
> >
> > Far simpler, and if yuou are using encryption to begin with, you are
> > probably encrypting most of the data anyway.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> >
> >>From: negrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Sent: Nov 29, 2006 9:4
itions (please see
>> >> http://www.kbforge.com/index.html). The application is not yet
>> available
>> >> for
>> >> downloading simply because I am not sure if the Lucene licence allows
>> me
>> >> to
>> >>
egrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Nov 29, 2006 9:45 PM
>>To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support
Field.Store.Encrypted
>>
>>
>>Thank you Luke for your comments and the references you supplied.
-
>From: negrinv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Nov 29, 2006 9:45 PM
>To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support
>Field.Store.Encrypted
>
>
>Thank you Luke for your comments and the references you supplied. I read
Agreed.
-Original Message-
>From: Luke Nezda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Nov 29, 2006 8:30 PM
>To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Attached proposed modifications to Lucene 2.0 to support
>Field.Store.Encrypted
>
>I think that adding encryption suppor
source code is not available (yet). I should add that
encryption
>> does not have to be an integral part of Lucene, it can be just part of
>> the
>> end application, but somehow it seems to me that Field.Store.Encrypted
>> belongs in the same category as compression and binary values.
>> I
be an integral part of Lucene, it can be just part of
>> the
>> end application, but somehow it seems to me that Field.Store.Encrypted
>> belongs in the same category as compression and binary values.
>> I would be happy to receive your feedback.
>>
le.com/file/4377/TestEncryptedDocument.java
TestEncryptedDocument.java
http://www.nabble.com/file/4378/TestDocument.java TestDocument.java
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Attached-proposed-modifications-to-Lucene-2.0-to-support-Field.Store.Encrypted-tf2727614.html#a76074
e.com/file/4376/luceneDiff2.txt luceneDiff2.txt
http://www.nabble.com/file/4377/TestEncryptedDocument.java
TestEncryptedDocument.java
http://www.nabble.com/file/4378/TestDocument.java TestDocument.java
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Attached-proposed-modifications-to-Luc
40 matches
Mail list logo
